I feel like without prophetic revelation, it's impossible to understand Mormon history (an alledged Cowdery letter)

[BuriedTartaria]

I have favorite topics, things, and people relating to Mormonism that I like to explore and feel enlightened by.
But I also don't trust much when it comes to Mormonism or much of anything in life in general anymore.
I feel like fake documents are something that has plagued Mormon history and this is probably the big reason why it's hard for me to be firmly in any camp or have any firm view on what went down during Joseph's life and the things that transpired after.

Once fake material is introduced in records that are reviewed to figure out what the true history of something is, I feel like you've reached a monumental hurdle (separating the real history from the fake history, the real quotes from the fake quotes, etc), that is best and only absolutely overcome by a sincere, legitimate prophet. Someone who has the veil pulled from before their eyes, who has visions, who communes with the Lord. I think a figure like that can learn so much truth from the direct source of truth that they can make heads and tails of what truth is (some would say one or two people have come along who may actually be this). As a revelation given through Joseph said, "Truth is knowing things as they were, as they and as they are to be", or something to that extent. If that is truth, you could say lies are anything short of that in regards to how things were, how things are and how they are to be.

But it's hard to say who really is a prophet in Mormon history and can offer that sort of clean-up service on history for you.

The reason I'm making this thread is all of these feelings I have are resurfacing as I review an ALLEGED Oliver Cowdery letter. If this letter can be faked, and people believe it, it's such a good example of how you can make fake history. You can make false claims and it poisons a narrative. It poisons the character of someone. If it's fake and believable, it puts into question the validity of all other documents on the history of something (because this letter is far from being the only Mormon related document with an "alleged"-asterisk attached to it).

I think there's so much lying and forging of documents in Mormon history that I can't put much faith in much of it. BUT I also see that as a testament to the truth of the Book of Mormon; all hands were on deck and all craftiness was exercised to confuse and put the precious record in bondage to lies and deceit. Causing many to dwindle in unbelief and err in doctrine.

If this can be a document that paints a certain perspective and that perspective is a lie (meaning the document didn't come from the person it was said to have come from, it wasn't made when it was said to have been made), how many other documents are the exact same thing?
The document I'm referencing in this thread argues for a fallen prophet Joseph Smith perspective. If this alleged historical document is fake, are other key documents that argue that perspective fake? Are documents arguing for different takes on Joseph Smith fake?

Real document or fake document, I'm quoting some of it because there are attitudes expressed in the letter that are common attitudes found among independent believers of the Book of Mormon today and I find that interesting. This letter views the Book of Mormon as true and Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet. And as I said, there's a lot of questions over the validity of the document. Most of you probably wouldn't care to read it (and/or you maybe already have), but some of you here (Being There, Be Not Deceived) may really enjoy it if you haven't already encountered it.

https://archive.org/stream/cowdery1839/ ... 9_djvu.txt
and a write up on why this document is probably a forgery done by an apologetic group for the LDS institution:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... Day_Saints

Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them
now, and not by our Priesthood either. The "First El-
der" errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and
his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to
him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will,

may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but
a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to
God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips,
while their hearts are far from him.

You've got the doctrine of humanity having the opportunity to be "saved" during mortality, having an encounter with the Lord through the veil during their mortal life. The Second Comforter. And the implication that this is something that had been going on throughout history. This is a major theme of the Book of Mormon, and a part of Joseph Smith's teachings that the LDS church distanced itself from over time, and a doctrine that has become popular in independent Mormonism over the past 15 years.

I no longer believe that all the other churches are
wrong.

Moving away from the focus on a single, all-powerful institution, another increasingly popular view in independent Mormonism.


Some of the lines in this document, the way they are written, they definitely make me question if it's authentic (some of the things stated sound too perfectly encapsulating of certain perspectives on a false-prophet view of Joseph, it's like wishful thinking from a 100% anti taking form in writing), but this was found in 1909 and it could be real. It could be false. Who knows what is what when it comes to historical Mormon documents?


I'm hesitating to post this thread, but I think it's important we remind ourselves that the library of documents relating to Mormonism includes enough fake documents claiming to be historical (the pure skeptic might say that is the DNA of Mormonism :p ) that we should exercise caution in judgments.

[Luke]

Interesting. When I read it, there were certain parts that did read like a forgery. But maybe Cowdery did write it.

I believe that what the letter decries as false is true, so it doesn’t harm my belief system in any way. But interesting nonetheless. May take a closer look tomorrow.